But the most damning evidence of the ecumenical mindset is the section that condemns liberal ecumenicism with moslems even as it supports liberal ecumenicism with Jews.
The author can't seem to make up his mind. Is liberal ecumenicism a good thing, or a bad thing???
Bruce Bawer, liberal ecumenist? He's not concerned with religion here. He's writing from a political point of view.
Most people here would probably agree with him about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, though one would hope not about his praise for Meotti's cheap shot attack sub-journalism.
BTW, sometimes you can judge a book by its cover:
Pushing a lot of buttons there.
The article appeared at Front Page Magazine, which is allergic to "religious fanaticism" and promotes a staunchly secular anti-Communism. As for Meotti praising Israel's record on "gay rights," that tells us plenty about him. Israel's notoriously lax attitude towards homosexuality (among other sins) is one of the blackest marks against it (though this doesn't keep militant "gays" from bashing Israel and supporting the "palestinians," since the latter are their fellow "oppressed").
BTW, sometimes you can judge a book by its cover:
Pushing a lot of buttons there.
Unfortunately, the picture isn't far wrong. For all the liberal "philo-Semitism" the post-VII church professes, it has been consistently pro-Arab and pro-PLO, just as Middle Eastern chrstians are the most anti-Jewish in the world and support the PLO fanatically.
Listen--it is simply a matter of the historical record that the Catholic Church, whether old or new, prefers the Arabs/moslems to the Jews. The Jewish People and especially the State of Israel are of no significance whatsoever in Catholic theology. Nevertheless Jewish ecumaniacs seem to prefer the Catholic Church to people whose philo-Semitism is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps Catholics don't talk so "funny?"